Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA recently stated that
she welcomed the spread of FMD through the U.S. as "it would shake up
consumers." Controversial as this may sound, it appears to be beginning
to happen here in the UK. In the early hours of this morning the BBC 24
hour news programme broadcast a news item concerning the rise in the
demand for more organic produce, (80%) before the outbreak of FMD, and
the desire of farmers to go down this route as they have to adapt to
consumer demands (note the incentive of finances, not animal welfare).
This however

shows a remarkable shift in attitudes to modern farming
in a very short space of time. It could well be that FMD could be the
catalyst that could see the beginning of change. Other events are also
significant. The supermarket giant Sainsbury's openly advertises it's
commitment to organic farming, displaying signs above the shopping
aisles and the demand far outweighs what the UK can produce and has to
import. The government has been under pressure for many years to reform
animal agriculture from organizations like Compassion in World Farming
and Animal Aid and are now actually asking advice from these bodies -- a
huge advance in itself.

Even on a personal level the residents of my own
community have perceptively changed their attitude towards me. This is
an area which has always been agricultural and the mentality of "You
must have meat to survive still pervades." I live close to where the
epidemic originated and their sense of guilt is tangible (if not muted)
and the vitriolic, often violent abuse that I used to have to endure has
ceased (he told us so ?).

As for the poor farmers, tearfully bemoaning their
losses, here are some interesting facts:

1) Farmers have received full market value for animals
slaughtered. Payment per dairy cow is as much as £1,100 and they have
been granted £60 for each lamb. Even spent ewes -- for whom the regular
market had collapsed -- were each drawing £32 compensation. The full
amount is not yet known.

2) As early ago as April just over 300 farmers received
compensation totaling £1.3 million, with the largest sums going to some
of Britain's wealthiest landowners. Willie Cleave, the Devon farmer and
live exports dealer whose widespread buying and selling of sheep helped
spread disease into that county, has received £1.3 million. He was
reported to be down at his

local pub, gloating over his good fortune and toasting
the Minister of Agriculture (Mail on Sunday, April 15). Billy Waugh the
owner of the farm where the outbreak was identified (a previous farm he
ran was closed because of the stinking, squalid conditions) was
reprimanded by the government with a £50,000 handout.

3) More money was paid for sick animals than for healthy
ones. This led to farmers deliberately infecting their own sheep
(Farmers Weekly March 23). The method is to take a rag and wipe it over
a diseased sheep's mouth and then rub the rag onto an uninfected animal.
The BBC reported some farmers thrusting the feet of live sheep into
boiling water to produce FMD-type blisters. Cases were also found of
farmers deliberately moving their sheep into 'hot spots'.

4 ) Some farmers claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds
worth of subsidies for sheep they in fact did not own (Daily mail, April
11; Private Eye, March 23)

5 ) Additional help has come from Prince Charles, The
Royal Bank of Scotland, newspaper appeals and the racing industry. More
help from the government is in the form of an "agrimonetary
compensation" -- £20 million and set to rise.

All this for an industry that represents 0.8% of the
UK's gross domestic product. It employs around 1% of the working
population, valued at £2.3 billion. Tourism on the other hand is £64
billion and employs 2 million -- and their compensation -- pitiful in
comparison.

After all this I can only quote Dr. Steve Best "Let us
turn tragedy into opportunity " and hope that the sacrifice of these
animals will spark off a new fire of resurgence that will light the way
forward.

** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.